I tried googling “feminist wallpapers” myself and came up with negligible relevant results. Surprising, isn’t that? Is that because there are no feminists left or no one cares about feminist wallpapers? But then, how does it explain at least 25 hits on my blog everyday just looking for feminist wallpapers?

Among the top 5 Google results for “feminist wallpapers” were the following really ridiculous images:

I have nothing to say about these images. Anyone who knows my views on women’s rights and feminism will know.

But the point of this post is to actually give my readers some halfway decent feminist wallpapers. Here are some of my favorite feminist images, including feminist stamps for blogs or websites. I scourged around the internet and found Deviant Art to be a great resource. You might want to check my ‘Collection‘ on Deviant Art.

The one above is among my all-time favorites. It’s such a compelling image – it’s like a Mona Lisa, there can be endless number of interpretations just about the eyes of this woman.

Here are some stamps I found on Deviant Art:

You can download all these images or order prints on Deviant Art. Drop me a line if you liked these images, and let me know if there’s something else you’re looking for.. I might just be able to dig out something you like

‘What kind of an example would you set for me if you go back to the man who broke you?

So finally, I found the time, the energy, and above all – the WILL – to take on a monumental task I committed myself to a couple months ago. Mind you, this is despite several other monumental tasks that remain smouldering on the backburner of my brain. Hopefully, they will not be charred ashen before I can summon the WILL to complete them to.

I’m guessing, dear reader (always wanted to write that a-la-mode Jane Eyre, the dour-faced romantic heroine of my adolescence), that you would not really care to know what the taskes uber-unestimable are on my calendar, and for the sake of my own sanity, I will not care to repeat them here either.

Linda Hirshman

On we march to the mountains of Atlas, or in this case, the great feminist article Ranjani sent me to review. There, I said it. Feminist. Can’t help myself. I love being one. I love the word. Such a powerful word, I like the busty sound of it. No namby-pansie this. Feminist – a word so full of energy, rebellion, ambition, determination (WILL – mankind’s collective WILL to change the stinking status quo).

I will keep referring to some lines, words.. but it is just so much better if you have an overarching idea of the ideas I will be talking about. Of course, it is best to read the whole article, which is available at here

‘Everybody hates Linda’, says someone on mothersmovent.com (I shudder at the thought of the rest of the articles on that blog), and ‘Hirshman has it backwards‘, says an NYTimer Op-ed columnist. Pfft, seriously? One of the most progressive ideologies of all-time, decried and discarded in entirety. Me, I feel there is much to be taken and adapted from Hirshman, and much to be mulled over, but nought to be discarded. In my posts that follow, I will examine some of the ideas she has played with in her book. Tonight, it’s time to call it a day.

(relinquished of responsibility for the next 9 hours.. )

From Indian Express:

In the Malayalam memoir called ‘Amen’, former Sister Jesme lifts the dark veil over sexual abuse, corruption and power struggles in the catacombs of convents where she lived for about 30 years.

The church is yet to officially respond to the tell-all reminiscences of the 52-year-old Jesme, holding they would react to it after studying the book.

An English professor and the Principal of a church-run college in Thrissur, Jesme quit the convent in 2008 after spending years of ‘sufferings and struggles’.

Jesme, who continues her religious life or ‘sanayas’ even after leaving the convent, said the aim of the book was not to just sell something juicy but to ‘open a little window to allow some light to enter into silent sufferings of hundreds of women.’

“I wanted an outlet for my experiences of my trauma. Society has every right to know what is happening to Sisters,” Jesme said dismissing suggestions she has sensationalised issues to get cheap publicity.

“When a woman is molested only one in thousand will speak out. Then think of the nuns, they will not speak out the truth,” Jesme, now staying in Kozhikode, said.

Jesme reminisces that she had had hints of things turning out against her right from the day she joined a convent as an aspirant for nunhood while continuing her college studies.

Lesbian relations are quite common in many convents where nuns often get bonded as pairs for emotional and physical relief, she alleges in her book.

Jesme says she had her first rude shock as a novice when a couple of fellow sisters told her that a priest assigned to preside over the retreat asked them to kiss him.

Startled by what she had heard, she asked the priest if it was proper to have done such a thing. She not only failed to get a convincing reply but was asked to ‘submit to the discipline expected of a nun’.

Summing up her long struggles, Jesme writes: “I renounced the position and the financial security as the principal of the church-run college to submit to God’s will and win divine freedom and peace. I am opening up my heart to my friends who understand me when confronted with harsh realities of life”.

Jesme’s friend and lawyer R K Asha, who helped her in writing the book, said the work was not meant to tarnish the church’s image as alleged by certain quarters.

“She had shown courage to expose the unholy things happening in convents and whatever she had written are truths,” Asha said.

“We do not want to react to it without properly studying the book. We will come out with our response in a day or two,” Vicar General of Thrissur Diocese, Fr Rafael Thattil, said when the church’s views on the book were sought.

The literary and political circles too have declined to react as most writers are shying away from making any comment when contacted.

The book, published by DC books, has already had its second impression within a fortnight of its release.

Here are some excerpts from an article Ranjani sent me to read and comment on. The entire article is available at http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10646

“Choice feminism” claims that staying home with the kids is just one more feminist option. Funny that most men rarely make the same “choice.” Exactly what kind of choice is that?

I found that among the educated elite, who are the logical heirs of the agenda of empowering women, feminism has largely failed in its goals. There are few women in the corridors of power, and marriage is essentially unchanged. The number of women at universities exceeds the number of men. But, more than a generation after feminism, the number of women in elite jobs doesn’t come close.

The real glass ceiling is at home.

In interviews, women with enough money to quit work say they are “choosing” to opt out. Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism. Add to this the good evidence that the upper-class workplace has become more demanding and then mix in the successful conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles and you’ve got a perfect recipe for feminism’s stall.

In 2000, Harvard Business School professor Myra Hart surveyed the women of the classes of 1981, 1986, and 1991 and found that only 38 percent of female Harvard MBAs were working full time.

Economists argue about the meaning of the data, even going so far as to contend that more mothers are working. They explain that the bureau changed the definition of work slightly in 2000, the economy went into recession, and the falloff in women without children was similar. However, even if there wasn’t a falloff but just a leveling off, this represents not a loss of present value but a loss of hope for the future — a loss of hope that the role of women in society will continue to increase.

This isn’t only about day care. Half my Times brides quit before the first baby came. In interviews, at least half of them expressed a hope never to work again. None had realistic plans to work. More importantly, when they quit, they were already alienated from their work or at least not committed to a life of work. One, a female MBA, said she could never figure out why the men at her workplace, which fired her, were so excited about making deals.

Most women hope to marry and have babies. If they resist the traditional female responsibilities of child-rearing and householding, what Arlie Hochschild called “The Second Shift,” they are fixing for a fight. But elite women aren’t resisting tradition. As one lawyer-bride put it in explaining her decision to quit practicing law after four years, “I had a wedding to plan.” Another, an Ivy Leaguer with a master’s degree, described it in management terms: “He’s the CEO and I’m the CFO. He sees to it that the money rolls in and I decide how to spend it.” It’s their work, and they must do it perfectly. “We’re all in here making fresh apple pie,” said one, explaining her reluctance to leave her daughters in order to be interviewed. The family CFO described her activities at home: “I take my [3-year-old] daughter to all the major museums. We go to little movement classes.”

Conservatives contend that the dropouts prove that feminism “failed” because it was too radical, because women didn’t want what feminism had to offer.

The movement did start out radical. Betty Friedan’s original call to arms compared housework to animal life. In The Feminine Mystique she wrote, “[V]acuuming the living room floor — with or without makeup — is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman’s full capacity. … Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind’s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it … when he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being.”

Thereafter, however, liberal feminists abandoned the judgmental starting point of the movement in favor of offering women “choices.” A woman could work, stay home, have 10 children or one, marry or stay single. It all counted as “feminist” as long as she chose it. (So dominant has the concept of choice become that when Charlotte, with a push from her insufferable first husband, quits her job, the writers at Sex and the City have her screaming, I choose my choice! I choose my choice!)

As feminist historian Alice Echols put it, “Rather than challenging their subordination
in domestic life, the feminists of NOW committed themselves to fighting for women’s integration into public life.”

Great as liberal feminism was, once it retreated to choice the movement had no language to use on the gendered ideology of the family.

The 50 percent of census answerers and the 62 percent of Harvard MBAs and the 85 percent of my brides of the Times all think they are “choosing” their gendered lives. They don’t know that feminism, in collusion with traditional society, just passed the gendered family on to them to choose. Even with all the day care in the world, the personal is still political. Much of the rest is the opt-out revolution.

If women’s flourishing does matter, feminists must acknowledge that the family is to 2005 what the workplace was to 1964 and the vote to 1920. Like the right to work and the right to vote, the right to have a flourishing life that includes but is not limited to family cannot be addressed with language of choice.

There are three rules: Prepare yourself to qualify for good work, treat work seriously, and don’t put yourself in a position of unequal resources when you marry.

The preparation stage begins with college. It is shocking to think that girls cut off their options for a public life of work as early as college. But they do. The first pitfall is the liberal-arts curriculum, which women are good at, graduating in higher numbers than men. Although many really successful people start out studying liberal arts, the purpose of a liberal education is not, with the exception of a miniscule number of academic positions, job preparation.

…a common thread among the women I interviewed was a self-important idealism about the kinds of intellectual, prestigious, socially meaningful, politics-free jobs worth their incalculably valuable presence. So the second rule is that women must treat the first few years after college as an opportunity to lose their capitalism virginity and prepare for good work, which they will then treat seriously.

The best way to treat work seriously is to find the money. Money is the marker of success in a market economy; it usually accompanies power, and it enables the bearer to wield power, including within the family. Almost without exception, the brides who opted out graduated with roughly the same degrees as their husbands. Yet somewhere along the way the women made decisions in the direction of less money. Part of the problem was idealism; idealism on the career trail usually leads to volunteer work, or indentured servitude in social-service jobs, which is nice but doesn’t get you to money. Another big mistake involved changing jobs excessively. Without exception, the brides who eventually went home had much more job turnover than the grooms did. There’s no such thing as a perfect job. Condoleezza Rice actually wanted to be a pianist, and Gary Graffman didn’t want to give concerts.

If you are good at work you are in a position to address the third undertaking: the reproductive household. The rule here is to avoid taking on more than a fair share of the second shift. If this seems coldhearted, consider the survey by the Center for Work-Life Policy. Fully 40 percent of highly qualified women with spouses felt that their husbands create more work around the house than they perform. According to Phyllis Moen and Patricia Roehling’s Career Mystique, “When couples marry, the amount of time that a woman spends doing housework increases by approximately 17 percent, while a man’s decreases by 33 percent.”

How to avoid this kind of rut? You can either find a spouse with less social power than you or find one with an ideological commitment to gender equality. Taking the easier path first, marry down. Don’t think of this as brutally strategic. If you are devoted to your career goals and would like a man who will support that, you’re just doing what men throughout the ages have done: placing a safe bet.

In her 1995 book, Kidding Ourselves: Babies, Breadwinning and Bargaining Power, Rhona Mahoney recommended finding a sharing spouse by marrying younger or poorer, or someone in a dependent status, like a starving artist. Because money is such a marker of status and power, it’s hard to persuade women to marry poorer. So here’s an easier rule: Marry young or marry much older.

If you have carefully positioned yourself either by marrying down or finding someone untainted by gender ideology, you will be in a position to resist bearing an unfair share of the family. Even then you must be vigilant. Bad deals come in two forms: economics and home economics. The economic temptation is to assign the cost of child care to the woman’s income. If a woman making $50,000 per year whose husband makes $100,000 decides to have a baby, and the cost of a full-time nanny is $30,000, the couple reason that, after paying 40 percent in taxes, she makes $30,000, just enough to pay the nanny. So she might as well stay home. This totally ignores that both adults are in the enterprise together and the demonstrable future loss of income, power, and security for the woman who quits. Instead, calculate that all parents make a total of $150,000 and take home $90,000. After paying a full-time nanny, they have $60,000 left to live on.

The home-economics trap involves superior female knowledge and superior female sanitation. The solutions are ignorance and dust. Never figure out where the butter is. “Where’s the butter?” Nora Ephron’s legendary riff on marriage begins. In it, a man asks the question when looking directly at the butter container in the refrigerator. “Where’s the butter?” actually means butter my toast, buy the butter, remember when we’re out of butter. Next thing you know you’re quitting your job at the law firm because you’re so busy managing the butter. If women never start playing the household-manager role, the house will be dirty, but the realities of the physical world will trump the pull of gender ideology. Either the other adult in the family will take a hand or the children will grow up with robust immune systems.

If these prescriptions sound less than family-friendly, here’s the last rule: Have a baby. Just don’t have two. Mothers’ Movement Online’s Judith Statdman Tucker reports that women who opt out for child-care reasons act only after the second child arrives. A second kid pressures the mother’s organizational skills, doubles the demands for appointments, wildly raises the cost of education and housing, and drives the family to the suburbs. But cities, with their Chinese carryouts and all, are better for working mothers. It is true that if you follow this rule, your society will not reproduce itself. But if things get bad enough, who knows what social consequences will ensue? After all, the vaunted French child-care regime was actually only a response to the superior German birth rate.
an>

At feminism’s dawning, two theorists compared gender ideology to a caste system. To borrow their insight, these daughters of the upper classes will be bearing most of the burden of the work always associated with the lowest caste: sweeping and cleaning bodily waste. Not two weeks after the Yalie flap, the Times ran a story of moms who were toilet training in infancy by vigilantly watching their babies for signs of excretion 24-7. They have voluntarily become untouchables.

When she sounded the blast that revived the feminist movement 40 years after women received the vote, Betty Friedan spoke of lives of purpose and meaning, better lives and worse lives, and feminism went a long way toward shattering the glass ceilings that limited their prospects outside the home. Now the glass ceiling begins at home. Although it is harder to shatter a ceiling that is also the roof over your head, there is no other choice.

But since I began to think about it, I said I wanted to get married in jeans. Why? Because big fat Indian weddings never appealed to me, not even the ludicrously lovely Jan wedding this year. Hey, weddings should be about family and friends getting together, not blowing your lives’ savings in a day.

I remember wanting a beautiful lehnga for Summi didi’s wedding, and the only one I liked was for 16k, and mom and pa saying, ‘ why don’t you save that sort of lavish lehnga for your own wedding?’ and very quietly I said, ‘because I’ve told you that I want to get married in jeans.’ Well, and pa agreed.

‘Ok, you get married in jeans. Which brand do you want to wear?’ (he knew my brand consciousness would kick in, no one would catch me dead in a pair of Newport, not since ’95 anyway)

And so I thought it was settled.. the whole business of jeans at the wedding. Until now. When the plunge has been finalized for Jan 28. Now, I say I wanna go buy a cool pair of jeans, and no one wants to hear anything about it. How ridiculous is that?

If for nothing else, give it to me coz it’s my girlhood dream to get married in jeans.

So things have been heating up. They just wouldn’t listen to me. And it was driving me mad. Until my donald duck intervened and suggested he take over the brawl, ahem.. conversation. Sure, she’s all your, I said as I handed him the phone with my mommy at the other end, despairing over my refusal to wear lehnga and sari and mangalsutra and mehndi.

I couldn’t catch all the words he said. And he has this disconcerting habit of pacing up-n-down-n-up-n-down when he’s on the phone.. but I knew he was working some of his magic on mom, not the same he’d worked on me but similar. A few minutes later, he calmly hand me the phone. I said a rough hello, hell, I hadn’t been soothed. And mo just said, jeans it is.

Hurray for my donald duck.

Update:

Ahmedabad, Jan 28: We married ( I like saying it in the active voice).